Taggerung would be guy number one bitching about Bernie being "center right" the moment he stepped into office.
Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
-
-
Oh and I'm originally from Virginia, that's one flip flopping ass state. Might as well make it purple if you ask me lol.
-
Taggerung, many of the folk you're disagreeing with are like you, all for pushing the needle towards the left. What's being argued here is degree.
More than once people have laid out their many reasons for investing in the Democratic party at this point in time. Despite having voiced misgivings!
Can you be upset at this point because you don't accept them as "good enough" ones?You're just gonna keep getting dunked on if you don't acknowledge that there are many good progressive reasons to vote Democratic this election,
if not for Hillary, who is progressive on some issues but not others, then for the other issues of relevance to liberal interests that are not purely financial or economic.And there's loads. They may not be the most important to you, but they certainly are part of the voting calculus here.
-
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
-
I wanted to ask this for a while, and I think here's probably the best place to not sound like an idiot in the process of asking. Trump's promise to deport all Muslims is very much Unconstitional, isn't it? I mena, if you were born here, and a law-abiding citizen, there's no legal ground to be exiled simply for religion, yes?
-
Hilary isn't going to lose this election and she's not going to lose if she's the incumbent. I know that's not 100% fact but it might as well be. First it was 1/3 Bernie supporters weren't going to pick her, last time I looked it was 1/4. By the time the date rolls around people will most likely be so sick of Trump that will drop even lower.
There's no harm in taking a stand here. There is no risk. She will win whether you take a stand or not. So take the stand.
8 years in is huge in terms of technological development. It's huge in terms of how much wealth the wealthy will accrue. It's huge in terms of how much data the NSA will collect and how much better they will be at collecting it.
You have never had a surer time to make a protest vote against your party and you should do it because it really matters that they get the message.
-
I'm not particularly pro Hillary but I thought the Clinton years were generally pretty good, she definitely knows politics and would probably have a lot of connections. She's obviously not Bernie but I don't think she's going to be bad. I remember when everyone was talking about Obama like they do about Bernie. People are acting like Bernie's just gonna put his foot down and tear down the whole establishment and while I think that would be neat, even just to see some progress over a couple of years, I just don't know if it would really happen
Trump seems completely incompetent however and I can't stand that
-
@S.C.:
I wanted to ask this for a while, and I think here's probably the best place to not sound like an idiot in the process of asking. Trump's promise to deport all Muslims is very much Unconstitional, isn't it? I mena, if you were born here, and a law-abiding citizen, there's no legal ground to be exiled simply for religion, yes?
Where something is constitutional or not has never stopped the GOP from trying to oppress people.
-
Unfortunately, I live in Iowa. Last election we voted for Obama from what I recall. I'm pretty sure we're a blue state but the rural areas are most def red. Iowa city, Does Moines, and a lot of the metropolitan areas are liberal so its possible Iowa could swayed but its unlikely. Hell, Ted Cruz won the caucuses here. I'll tell you what though there's A LOT of Bernie support here. It literally Bernie or bust to a lot of democratic voters. Kind of stupid really.
So overall left-leaning and getting more liberal. You'll know how things stand better five months from now buy it's probably better to not take the risk.
-
Trump seems completely incompetent however and I can't stand that
And he already has Dick Cheney's seal of approval….Dick seems to have a thing for mentally handicapped people most people can't stand.
-
So overall left-leaning and getting more liberal. You'll know how things stand better five months from now buy it's probably better to not take the risk.
Yeah, I might keep my vote secret like an old person cus if i tell my friends they might give me a whole pro-Bernie spiel and confuse me more lol.
-
Trump is someone that makes George W. Bush seem like a professional public speaker. He literally said "Win bigley." That's not a fucking word. Not how any leader should sound. But for some stupid ass reason his followers eat it up.
I don't like the idea of having to vote for someone I didn't want to vote for due to the other side not being able to get their shit together and let this clusterfuck happen. But I can't see voting for Bernie as a good thibg right now. I like his ideals and how he's mostly handled himself, but it would be hard to imagine most of what he wants getting actualized. I really wanted a candidate that acknowledges how screwed up things were. Hillary isn't very likeable, but she's not a horrific writhing mass of incoherence and stupidity.
-
Hilary isn't going to lose this election and she's not going to lose if she's the incumbent. I know that's not 100% fact but it might as well be. First it was 1/3 Bernie supporters weren't going to pick her, last time I looked it was 1/4. By the time the date rolls around people will most likely be so sick of Trump that will drop even lower.
There's no harm in taking a stand here. There is no risk. She will win whether you take a stand or not. So take the stand.
8 years in is huge in terms of technological development. It's huge in terms of how much wealth the wealthy will accrue. It's huge in terms of how much data the NSA will collect and how much better they will be at collecting it.
You have never had a surer time to make a protest vote against your party and you should do it because it really matters that they get the message.
The problem is that your rhetoric is based on the exact same logic that keeps 2/3 of eligible voters from actually voting and making their voices heard.
"Oh, my vote won't matter, so why should I bother"
You're literally using that exact same piece of logic. You believe there's NO Way Trump can win, so your vote won't matter towards that, so you can waste it trying to make a "Point".
Plus, this same logic specific to Trump has been flying around since he announced his candidacy. "This country isn't THAT stupid, no WAY he'll get the nom" but lo and behold….The funny thing is, if we go by the logic you're putting forth, your vote as a "protest vote" won't matter either.
Either the Bernie Bros write in enough to cause Clinton to lose, ushering in the United States of Trump and some people take notice of all the write ins, or Hillary wins in which case the write ins won't get a mention.
So, either you make your point, but we're stuck with 4-8 years of Trump, or Hillary wins and your point gets ignored.
Plus, even if Trump wins and someone takes note of your point, it would have to be a HUGE blowout, like Bernie taking a VERY sizable chunk of Hillary's votes for the point to actually hit the mark you want it to hit. We know this because people still debate even know whether or not Ralph Nader even had an effect on Bush v. Gore, and Gore outright lost that one.
THAT'S the real problem here. Your position and what you want to do by not voting or writing in Bernie is too much risk too little reward.
Hillary's stated positions are a much milder version of Bernie's.
She's Pro Obamacare and is in favor of expanding it, She's Pro-LGBT, she would put forth Progressive Supreme Court picks, She wants to up the minimum wage, she's actually saying on her Website she's for Campaign Finance Reform, Making Wall Street Accountable.
Now, she's a politician first and that's gonna be the first counter to me saying this, I know, but if she wants to get re-elected, she HAS to try to do this stuff on some level. If she ignores all the promises she made upon getting office and suddenly flipped a switch to full on Right wing mode, she'd be signing the death warrant of her re-election right there. It would be direct confirmation of the "She Lies!" attacks she's been getting for years, and that's a vERY bad thing if you want to get re-elected. If she puts up a token effort to get some of this stuff done, and fails blaming the Republicans, she'll be called ineffectual which is almost as bad. She knows she HAS to actually try to get a lot of this done, otherwise she'll end up a one-term wonder.
Plus, there's the Supreme Court. This matters to an insane degree because these are lifelong appointments, so this will have ramifications beyond the 4-8 years after this. If we end up with an uber-conservative pick to replace Scalia and then we lose one of the 4 liberal justices from Retirement or worse, we could be looking at an uber-majority of Conservative Justices on the court for a VERY long time. Good luck getting ANY finance reforms or election reforms passed with that.
What this means is, assuming Bernie doesn't pull out a miracle win at the last minute, the only way to get things trending in the direction you want, or at the very least, prevent them from regressing, is Hillary.
I think the problem here is that you obviously see the flaws in the system, a lot of us do too, but you also seem to believe that those flaws are easily fixable. That you can find that magical politician who will be able to get into office, and then wave a magic wand and fix them, and that Bernie is that guy.
Here's the thing. That's not possible. I'm not saying it's not possible to fix our broken system, it totally is, but that's not going to be fixed by voting one guy in particular into Office and either way it won't happen over night. It's gonna take steps and a lot of things to be done.
Here's what would need to be done:
1: The parties as they exist now need to BOTH Reassess things and realize they can't continue as they are. Right now, the Dems have things together much more than the Republicans who are in full-on Panic mode. Almost none of the major Republicans like their nominee, the intelligent wing of the party outright hates him. Very few Republican officials will endorse him and a lot of Repubs are burning their voter registration cards in effigy.
After their disaster of a primary which had 17 candidates, a childish media circus, ending with Trump on top, losing the presidency will HEAVILY damage the party. They'll HAVE to reassess things, hopefully for the better.
The Dems aren't anywhere near that, so a loss on that side will hurt, but not shatter things and they'll be able to continue Business as usual without much change.2: We need more than the presidency. We need the House and the Senate to start filling up with people who share this sentiment or at least who intend to push things in the right direction. Even if Bernie were president, Without a super majority in congress on his side, filibusters and obstruction are gonna happen and he's gonna get very little done.
3: I touched on this above, but We NEED progressives on the supreme court. Republicans believe in trickle down economics and making Wall Street stronger as a result. We let a conservative Majority happen and we're in trouble. Replacing Scalia isn't TOO scary since that would be back to Status quo, but if that happens nothing would change. For example, the 2010 Citizens United decision was a 5-4 Split right down party lines with the Conservative Justices vs. the Liberal ones voting along those lines. Kennedy, who is USUALLY more impartial and a swing voter, still does personally fall on the conservative side, so he voted on that side here. We replace Scalia with a Progressive tho? Suddenly, overturning Citizens United becomes possible without Hillary having to anything else. She just has to get a Progressive into that chair and then someone else can file a suit to get the case re-heard.
Even worse tho, if Trump was making this call, he's already said his pics would come from an uber-conservative shortlist from the "Heritage Foundation", so we know they'd be bad, and just imagine if one of the 4 Liberal justices were lost. We'd get rulings 100x worse than Citizens United.
A lot of this is one reason why... well, I get that we may never convince you to vote for Hillary, I get that your mind is made up but one thing you NEED to do, even if that is the case, is to vote.
I still say Voting Hillary is MUCH closer to getting what Bernie wants done than not voting for her, but if you still dig in your heels on this, still go and vote. Write in Bernie if you REALLY don't want to vote Hillary, but at least go vote so you can vote on the more minor elections. As I mentioned above, NO change will happen without more folks in congress to help bring it about, and at the very least, having a democrat Majority in one or, VERY optimistically BOTH chambers of congress would help counter the Reign of President Trump and keep the damage he's going to do to a minimum.
-
Vote for Trump/Write in Bernie and you get NOTHING.
Vote for Hilary and you might get something.
You Americans man, I can't believe there are some of you who would doom your fellow man/woman just because you didn't get what you want. F*ck my generation man.
-
The fact that Trump is pretty much the walking embodiment of all the ways the rich are given undeserved breaks in life alone should make any Bernie supporter want to cast a meaningful vote against him.
Of course, the only rebuttal is going to be to continue spewing Republican talking points about Hillary being "corrupt" and "untrustworthy".
-
Vote for Trump/Write in Bernie and you get NOTHING.
Vote for Hilary and you might get something.
You Americans man, I can't believe there are some of you who would doom your fellow man/woman just because you didn't get what you want. F*ck my generation man.
To be fair, as I outlined above, I think it IS born of a legitimate frustration with the issues in our system. There ARE problems with politics in this country. Campaign Finance issues run rampant, gerrymandering and voter suppression is a thing, there are too many processes in place that allow a big enough political arm to shut down any and all opposition, even if they are in the minority.
It's very easy to see how these things can frustrate a person to the point that they're entirely done with the system and want to see the whole thing burn and be replaced with something better, so I totally get where some folks might be coming from.
The problem is, that kind of thing just doesn't work. You don't get overnight change on anything. That's why if you look up the "United states Civil Rights Movement", you find that it's dated as having taken place between 1954 and 1968, and why there are 5 different "Civil Rights Acts" passed during that timeframe.
Change happened, and we are in a much better place as a result, but A: It didn't happen because one person made it happen, it took several doing a lot of effort. B: It didn't happen overnight, it took 14 years at minimum, and that's not counting all the strides that occured before then. Those can be dated back to the end of the Civil war, so over 100 years. and C: We still haven't compeltely fixed all those problems as evidenced by the fact that Racism is still a thing, and to be honest, I highly doubt that problem will ever fully go away.
This is almost exactly the same thing. It's a complex problem that isn't going away overnight and won't have one perfect savior who is going to fix it all by him or herself, it's going to take time, effort, and multiple people working on it.
Also, you don't fix a problem by making it worse, which Trump most assuredly would.
I think part of the problem is that the issues at play ARE very frustrating, and there are people who are worked up about it and I think Bernie kinda dangled a carrot in front of their faces about fixing the problem, and now that they probably won't get that carrot, they're lashing out and acting on Raw emotion rather than thinking about the situation logically and thoroughly.
It's a fact that if Bernie isn't the dem on the ticket, he won't win the general. Running as an independent won't do it nor will a write-in campaign.
It's also a fact that Donald Trump IS a wall street corporate Fat cat, he's the very thing that's causing this problem, on top of being ridiculously unqualified.
And it's also a fact that Hillary, while not necessarily the best option to fix these problems, would be a better fit to confront them than Trump.
Trump will make them worse, Hillary, at worst, to save political face, would be forced to hold the line and not let things get worse, at best she'd realize she needs to make good on her promises if she wants to be re-elected and will actually make progress on some of these things.Compared to Bernie, she doesn't go nearly as far as we need, Compared to Trump, she would at least keep us MOVING in that direction however.
But the people who are really upset and really worked up are so upset and worked up they either don't see that, or are so frustrated and want an easy fix so badly that they are blinded to the fact that there's no such thing.
-
Yeah, I might keep my vote secret like an old person cus if i tell my friends they might give me a whole pro-Bernie spiel and confuse me more lol.
Nothing strange about that. In most social situations I'm less talkative and open about my exact leanings (politics being one of the three things uncomfortable to bring up in polite company lol).
Anonymous voting is an incredibly important part of functional democracy.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Vote for Trump/Write in Bernie and you get NOTHING.
Vote for Hilary and you might get something.
You Americans man, I can't believe there are some of you who would doom your fellow man/woman just because you didn't get what you want. F*ck my generation man.
I'm still trying to figure out who these sorts are exactly.
I feel like they have to be younger than my generation (Millennials) somewhat because they seem like people who don't remember the Bush years. But then again some clearly are my generation…maybe they weren't paying attention?
It's almost like they take democratic center-left rule for granted and just think about "This isn't good enough, logically all effort must go to taking more steps in the progressive direction".
Almost like they don't really believe in Republicans controlling the presidency or something. -
@Monkey:
Nothing strange about that. In most social situations I'm less talkative and open about my exact leanings (politics being one of the three things uncomfortable to bring up in polite company lol).
Anonymous voting is an incredibly important part of functional democracy.The corollary to this is that an easy way to get people to like you is to appear somewhat informed and agree with them on politics. Try it when meeting your girlfriend's parents!
*Works best if they're the ones to bring politics up and you actually believe what you're saying.
-
The corollary to this is that an easy way to get people to like you is to appear somewhat informed and agree with them on politics. Try it when meeting your girlfriend's parents!
*Works best if they're the ones to bring politics up and you actually believe what you're saying.
When those politics involve your girlfriends father fleeing the army stationed on the other side of their tiny island, and those soldiers holding his childhood city hostage since the 70's…. yeah I'm pretty experienced on being careful with the inlaws on sensitive political discussion lol.
-
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-trump-surrounding-himself-fervent-homophobes_b_9848368.html
Only a matter of time until The Gays join The Hispanics and The Muslims.
-
As a french and probably also as an european, i think people who're not against the bearing of arms are far-right - winger.
In the republican party i can't see who's not a far right-winger ( well, i just know some guys from the elections actually, and Bush, and Nixon….... so i'm probably just an ignorant )In the last century, have there been any "good" republican president ? I'm seriously asking.
It's the first election of US i'm following. I didn't know it was a reality television. I didn't know such bullshit could even exist. I'm surprised.
I think we're gonna need a similar thread for the french elections in 2017...... ( don't know if it's possible )
-
Keep in mind the current Republican party didn't become the way it is until around 1965.
-
So is that 2/3 of the US voters don't actually bother to vote statement you guys throw around a bit of hyperbole, or do you guys in fact have a voter turnout that's well below 50%?
-
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-trump-surrounding-himself-fervent-homophobes_b_9848368.html
Only a matter of time until The Gays join The Hispanics and The Muslims.
There's this too from a couple days ago: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/28/julia-ioffe-journalist-melania-trump-antisemitic-abuse
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
As a french and probably also as an european, i think people who're not against the bearing of arms are far-right - winger.
In the republican party i can't see who's not a far right-winger ( well, i just know some guys from the elections actually, and Bush, and Nixon….... so i'm probably just an ignorant )In the last century, have there been any "good" republican president ? I'm seriously asking.
It's the first election of US i'm following. I didn't know it was a reality television. I didn't know such bullshit could even exist. I'm surprised.
I think we're gonna need a similar thread for the french elections in 2017...... ( don't know if it's possible )
Nixon, despite being a crook and a criminal, is more left-wing than every president that followed him.
-
As a french and probably also as an european, i think people who're not against the bearing of arms are far-right - winger.
In the republican party i can't see who's not a far right-winger ( well, i just know some guys from the elections actually, and Bush, and Nixon….... so i'm probably just an ignorant )In the last century, have there been any "good" republican president ? I'm seriously asking.
It's the first election of US i'm following. I didn't know it was a reality television. I didn't know such bullshit could even exist. I'm surprised.
Eisenhower is probably the best Republican President of the past 100 years. Pretty moderate, well respected, and his most notable legacy is probably the national highway system. After him, I guess… Bush Sr.? Ford? The bar is pretty low. The easy picks would be Teddy Roosevelt and Taft in the early 20th century but they just miss the chronological cutoff.
Frankly, Nixon wasn't an awful president outside of the whole Watergate conspiracy. Compared to the economic legacy of Dubya and Reagan he could have been a lot worse.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
So is that 2/3 of the US voters don't actually bother to vote statement you guys throw around a bit of hyperbole, or do you guys in fact have a voter turnout that's well below 50%?
It's hyperbole. Actual voter turnout is usually somewhere around 55-60% in presidential election years and lower in the off ones. It's about a 20% decrease from 19th century enthusiasm.
!
-
Eisenhower was president during the '50s though. A 5 year old could've governed during that period and still come out massively succesful.
-
Wasn't Nixon killing people with the aid of CIA or FBI ? I don't recall which.
I mean, killing american citizens who were against him ? Like innocent people… it's actually what my history teacher told me. And i'm pretty confident on what this guy is telling.And I was wondering about Kennedy. How popular is he nowadays ? He sent the army and started the war in Vietnam right? Do US citizens only know the myth? I mean, are they teaching you in school how an idiot he was ? Or are they saying he's like Gandhi because he has been murdered ?
-
Nixon, despite being a crook and a criminal, is more left-wing than every president that followed him.
Are we seriously repeating this lie here? Seriously?
-
He was a keynesian and a believer in government playing an important role in society. Everyone who came after until Obama have all followed neoliberal ideas. Hell, his propsed health care system was more encompassing than Obamacare. But was shot down by Democrats for not being nearly big enough (take note, Bernie fans, what happens when you don't compromise and refuse to take what you can get).
-
Nixon also believed in keeping up Vietnam and bombing the fuck out of Cambodia in the process.
Every bit of progressive legislation Nixon signed he did at gunpoint. Also officially making the Southern Strategy a thing.
-
Nixon was more liberal on economic issues. Social issues are a lot broader but in general we're more tolerant now than we've ever been.
@Cyan:
Nixon also believed in keeping up Vietnam and bombing the fuck out of Cambodia in the process.
Every bit of progressive legislation Nixon signed he did at gunpoint. Also officially making the Southern Strategy a thing.
Which is why he pulled out of Vietnam eventually. Kind of like Obama expanding drone strikes and taking years to exit Iraq.
LBJ deserves as much credit for the Southern Strategy as Nixon does by making the Democrats the party of civil rights.
-
I wouldn't say burning Vietnam is a specifically right wing thing. Kennedy and Johnson also were tough on that country. There was a consensus between the left and right that communism had to be fought everywhere lest the domino theory went into effect.
-
Nixon, despite being a crook and a criminal, is more left-wing than every president that followed him.
Jimmy Carter would probably disagree with that.
Which is why he pulled out of Vietnam eventually.
After artificially prolonging it by seven years by sabotaging the 1968 peace talks to undermine Humphrey.
-
One must wonder what the world is like in the universe where RFK wasn't killed.
-
@Cyan:
One must wonder what the world is like in the universe where RFK wasn't killed.
huh? Do you mean JKF?
-
huh? Do you mean JKF?
Robert Kennedy, John's brother and presumptive Democratic nominee in '68. Charismatic and capable as hell, was expected to be the next president.
Shot by a Palestinian in June. Democrats lose their shit and basically drop all of the balls, they run Humphrey and lose narrowly to Nixon.
-
He was a keynesian and a believer in government playing an important role in society. Everyone who came after until Obama have all followed neoliberal ideas. Hell, his propsed health care system was more encompassing than Obamacare. But was shot down by Democrats for not being nearly big enough (take note, Bernie fans, what happens when you don't compromise and refuse to take what you can get).
-
Nixon "pretended" to support a health care plan because congress might actually get something better out, that is single-payer (the republicans did something similar during early part of Clinton's term when he also tried to get his own going, but of course they dropped it when Clinton's failed. Hmm. wonder why?).
-
part of Nixon's plan was to privatize Medicaid.
-
All this fell apart after the 1972 election (which Nixon won), partly because yes, Ted Kennedy was told to wait until a Democrat was elected to the White House did get a better deal, but also because Nixon was told to back off by small businesses and the American Medical Association (which has been a big obstacle to unviersal health care since the time of Truman), and the fact that Nixon knew the Dems weren't going to get anything through.
This is key because Nixon was focused mainly on Vietnam and support for it (and while yes democrats did as well, although ones that tired to get the nominations after Johnson like Eugene McCarthy and RFK did not, neither Johnson nor Kennedy believed that Cambodia should be bombed). At the time, for example, environmentalists were a big political power (more so than today, in fact they might have been more powerful than business in that regard). So, Nixon shrewdly signs bills the democrats send his way (with clenched teeth) because they have veto proof majorities and it would waste any political capital he needs. Once he entered his second term, he no longer really need their support. So he starts to veto a lot more democrat proposed legistatlation. This included:
Clean Water Act (overriden by congress)
War Powers Resolution (overridden by congress, although it hasn't always used)
Comprehensive Child Development Bill (would have helped by single parents by creating a national day care system)
An increase to the minimum wage
A Rehabilitation Bill to help the disabled
This also ignores what he did to worsen civil rights. His attorney general, John Mitchell proposed changes to the Voting Rights Act, that Nixon championed, that would have done away with section 5 of the voting rights act (this by the way was worse than what the Roberts court did, which kept the section but made it unenforceable). That actually passed the house, but the senate blocked it and re-wrote the bill so that both section 4 and 5 were renewed and unchanged (also lowering the voting age), that eventually passed (Nixon would veoted this as well, but Kent State happened). And no, I don't think Nixon was doing it just to get southern conservatives vote because the people he put on the supreme court, helped basically overturned Brown vs the Board of Education, and the fact that he had government agencies only follow court orders with regards to civil rights at the bare minimum. (And you don't go around by telling people Storm Thurmond wasn't a racist like Nixon). He was also felt that woman shouldn't have any real jobs in government as well.
Obama has not vetoed any real legislation comparable to what Nixon did. He has not appointed anti-civil rights justices. He actually supported universal health care and got it passed (and that took a huge amount political capital to do so in a very hostile environment). He has his problems, but saying Nixon is to his left is ignorant. And I would argue you could make a similar case for the other democrat presidents after Nixon as well.
Nixon was more liberal on economic issues. Social issues are a lot broader but in general we're more tolerant now than we've ever been.
Which is why he pulled out of Vietnam eventually. Kind of like Obama expanding drone strikes and taking years to exit Iraq.
LBJ deserves as much credit for the Southern Strategy as Nixon does by making the Democrats the party of civil rights.
Wait, it's Johnson's fault that Nixon decided to exploit the resentment of white people for political purposes because he did the the right thing. What kind of logic is this?
-
-
@Cyan:
Robert Kennedy, John's brother and presumptive Democratic nominee in '68. Charismatic and capable as hell, was expected to be the next president.
Shot by a Palestinian in June. Democrats lose their shit and basically drop all of the balls, they run Humphrey and lose narrowly to Nixon.
ah, I've forgotten how many Kennedys there's been in politics. Is RFK a different person than Bobby Kennedy? Wasn't there about 3 of the Kennedys that were murdered while active in politics?
-
-
Bobby is short for Robert.
That's what I was thinking but I remember there were a few more but can't remember any other names besides 'JKF' and 'Bobby Kenedy'… and thought Bobby's death was more recent was wasn't sure if that was how they were referring to by 'RFK'
-
ah, I've forgotten how many Kennedys there's been in politics. Is RFK a different person than Bobby Kennedy? Wasn't there about 3 of the Kennedys that were murdered while active in politics?
There are a lot of Kennedys, but the more important ones are:
Joe Kennedy Sr. - One of FDR's advisors, had a problem with saying stupid shit to the press
Joe Kennedy Jr. - Groomed as the family heir and key to the Kennedy legacy, joined the Air Force and was killed in action in 1944
John F. Kennedy - The living embodiment of charisma, president for two years before getting shot. Best war story of any president.
Robert "Bobby" Kennedy - Essentially John's right-hand man, well-loved by a good chunk of the country, would probably have been president if he also didn't get shot
Ted Kennedy - One of the longest-serving Senators in history, only ran for president once in 1980 due to a checkered past and lost the nomination to Carter. Essentially King of Massachusetts, owned Mitt Romney in a debate, died of a tumor in 2009. -
As a french and probably also as an european, i think people who're not against the bearing of arms are far-right - winger.
Bearing arms is pretty popular in various parts of Europe, like Scandinavia.
The issue isn't being against gun ownership anyway, it's about increased regulation and certain types of arms being banned.
It's also about a near religious cult mindset toward guns in the US that those parts of Europe don't have. Those folks just seem happy to have a gun and go hunt sometimes or whatever. The American gun-nuts are a species apart.In the republican party i can't see who's not a far right-winger ( well, i just know some guys from the elections actually, and Bush, and Nixon….... so i'm probably just an ignorant )
That's no mistake as there's been a pretty severe rightward slide over the past bunch of decades for them.
In the last century, have there been any "good" republican president ? I'm seriously asking.
You can't really talk about the Republican Party today in the scope of a century, or the Democrat one. They've both undergone significant changes. You can more or less start dating the modern forms from the late 1960's.
In that time I'd say only….lol...Nixon. Who is garbage in many respects but did do some surprisingly great things in foreign policy. Namely the diplomacy with China. -
@Monkey:
Who is garbage in many respects but did do some surprisingly great things in foreign policy. Namely the diplomacy with China.
Though, of course, how much of that was Nixon and how much was Kissinger?
-
Wasn't Nixon killing people with the aid of CIA or FBI ? I don't recall which.
I mean, killing american citizens who were against him ? Like innocent people… it's actually what my history teacher told me.No…. wtf.
He was spying on the Democrats during his relection, and after he won he got found out and it was a huge scandal that eventually lead to him resigning. That's the Watergate scandal.Unless by "american", you mean "latin american". Because Republican (and some Democrat) presidents loved having the CIA help horrible things happened in South and Central America in the name of fighting communism. Nixon's administration was involved in the Chilean coup for instance.
While we're checking on your history teacher and US history, no America was not founded by English criminals that's Australia.
And I was wondering about Kennedy. How popular is he nowadays ? He sent the army and started the war in Vietnam right?
Kennedy saw increased involvement in the war between the two Vietnams (America did not start the war however you cut it). The North was trying to take over the South, and because the North was communist we were trying to stop that like in Korea.
But Kennedy didn't really provide the huge boom in troops that really made it become the war we all think of. That was slightly later under President Johnson.Do US citizens only know the myth? I mean, are they teaching you in school how an idiot he was ?
Vietnam has a terrible reputation as a general rule in America as far as wars go.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Which is why he pulled out of Vietnam eventually. Kind of like Obama expanding drone strikes and taking years to exit Iraq.
lol Nixon's escalation in the war is not analogous to increased drone strikes.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Cyan:
Though, of course, how much of that was Nixon and how much was Kissinger?
Both of them were really involved. But perhaps it should be said "how much of that was a golden opportunity". Because the Sino-Soviet split made it possible. Nevertheless it was a big deal that we still enjoy the benefits of today in some sense. And unlike Reagan who had Gorbachev to deal with, Mao was still alive (though not kicking). Making it even more impressive.
Hell the Cultural Revolution was still kinda in effect, with the creepo social pressure still existing if not the insane youth cult infestations. -
@Cyan:
Ted Kennedy - One of the longest-serving Senators in history, only ran for president once in 1980 due to a checkered past and lost the nomination to Carter. Essentially King of Massachusetts, owned Mitt Romney in a debate, died of a tumor in 2009.
sniff Don't bring up Ted, we're still getting over it! blows nose
In retrospect though, we think Ted was better as a Senator than a President anyway. He wasn't called "The Lion of the Senate" for nothing.
-
@Monkey:
While we're checking on your history teacher and US history, no America was not founded by English criminals that's Australia.
To be fair, debtor's prisons were a big part of why Georgia existed in the first place.
-
Hey, to the Brits once we rebelled we were all "criminals."
-
I'm really loving this discussion of post-WWII politics. Makes me wish my high school US history class was more comprehensive in it instead of basically giving up at Truman and skimming everything else.
-
@Cyan:
Robert Kennedy, John's brother and presumptive Democratic nominee in '68. Charismatic and capable as hell, was expected to be the next president.
Shot by a Palestinian in June. Democrats lose their shit and basically drop all of the balls, they run Humphrey and lose narrowly to Nixon.
Humphrey just sounds like a bad draft pick.
-
@Monkey:
No…. wtf.
He was spying on the Democrats during his relection, and after he won he got found out and it was a huge scandal that eventually lead to him resigning. That's the Watergate scandal.Unless by "american", you mean "latin american". Because Republican (and some Democrat) presidents loved having the CIA help horrible things happened in South and Central America in the name of fighting communism. Nixon's administration was involved in the Chilean coup for instance.
While we're checking on your history teacher and US history, no America was not founded by English criminals that's Australia.
Maybe you misunderstood me, or just didn't make myself clear…
But however, I'm not very qualified to continue this conversation. I'm just repeating here what an historian told me, i can't really prove a thing or whatever.And i didn't meant that US started the war in Vietnam.